BerkeleyBear wrote:Most likely getting a good job that pays well isn't really the problem. It's more problematic that at sticker you'd have to get a job that would enable you to pay off nearly 300K of debt and keep it for a while. The average lifespan for someone's career in biglaw is what? 3 years? The odds aren't in OP's favor.

Again, I don't understand why TLS assumes that you work in biglaw for 3-4 years (if you're lucky) and then you become unemployed for the rest of your career, or at best you move to a small firm and make $5/hour, making it impossible to continue making loan payments.

Look at the TLS threads of current associates taking questions. People leave their biglaw jobs to go to companies, equally-sized firms, smaller firms, or government jobs. This does not have to involve 70% pay cuts, and it certainly doesn't involve a sudden inability to continue paying off loans 3 years out of school. Is it a brutal job market? Yup. Does everyone end up unemployed? Not at all.

I'm hoping to ride the LRAP train and never spend time in biglaw, so this is largely irrelevant to me, but for a website full of really smart people, this mass anxiety about what comes after your 3 years in biglaw is absurd.

BerkeleyBear wrote:Most likely getting a good job that pays well isn't really the problem. It's more problematic that at sticker you'd have to get a job that would enable you to pay off nearly 300K of debt and keep it for a while. The average lifespan for someone's career in biglaw is what? 3 years? The odds aren't in OP's favor.

Again, I don't understand why TLS assumes that you work in biglaw for 3-4 years (if you're lucky) and then you become unemployed for the rest of your career, or at best you move to a small firm and make $5/hour, making it impossible to continue making loan payments.

Look at the TLS threads of current associates taking questions. People leave their biglaw jobs to go to companies, equally-sized firms, smaller firms, or government jobs. This does not have to involve 70% pay cuts, and it certainly doesn't involve a sudden inability to continue paying off loans 3 years out of school. Is it a brutal job market? Yup. Does everyone end up unemployed? Not at all.

I'm hoping to ride the LRAP train and never spend time in biglaw, so this is largely irrelevant to me, but for a website full of really smart people, this mass anxiety about what comes after your 3 years in biglaw is absurd.

I never said anyone would become unemployed for the rest of their career after year 3 of biglaw. Fiscally speaking, you'd likely need a biglaw job to pay off your debt as quickly as possible if you did pay sticker at NYU. And that would take over 3 years. It would be idiotic to assume otherwise. Most people who are intelligent want to do this as quickly as possible. For good reason. If someone wants to take 6+ years to pay off their debt then they are free to do so.

Justify your ED to NYU however you'd like my friend. I do hope you can ride that LRAP train of yours.

BerkeleyBear wrote:Most likely getting a good job that pays well isn't really the problem. It's more problematic that at sticker you'd have to get a job that would enable you to pay off nearly 300K of debt and keep it for a while. The average lifespan for someone's career in biglaw is what? 3 years? The odds aren't in OP's favor.

Again, I don't understand why TLS assumes that you work in biglaw for 3-4 years (if you're lucky) and then you become unemployed for the rest of your career, or at best you move to a small firm and make $5/hour, making it impossible to continue making loan payments.

Look at the TLS threads of current associates taking questions. People leave their biglaw jobs to go to companies, equally-sized firms, smaller firms, or government jobs. This does not have to involve 70% pay cuts, and it certainly doesn't involve a sudden inability to continue paying off loans 3 years out of school. Is it a brutal job market? Yup. Does everyone end up unemployed? Not at all.

I'm hoping to ride the LRAP train and never spend time in biglaw, so this is largely irrelevant to me, but for a website full of really smart people, this mass anxiety about what comes after your 3 years in biglaw is absurd.

brah, as a 1L at NYU on a big scholarship i am telling you that you are only hearing what you want to hear. you are using internet anecdotal evidence from a handful of "lucky" associates who may even not be who they say they are. your best argument is "does everyone end up unemployed? not at all". you are right not everyone ends up screwed, but you are most wrong if you don't think a significant portion do end up screwed. no offense, but this mass anxiety is more justified in that you should be nervous paying $250K for anything and it is more close to the reality than you would like to believe. taking out sticker in hopes of relying on LRAP is a terrible idea. PI jobs are way tougher to land than Biglaw positions.

BerkeleyBear wrote:Most likely getting a good job that pays well isn't really the problem. It's more problematic that at sticker you'd have to get a job that would enable you to pay off nearly 300K of debt and keep it for a while. The average lifespan for someone's career in biglaw is what? 3 years? The odds aren't in OP's favor.

Again, I don't understand why TLS assumes that you work in biglaw for 3-4 years (if you're lucky) and then you become unemployed for the rest of your career, or at best you move to a small firm and make $5/hour, making it impossible to continue making loan payments.

Look at the TLS threads of current associates taking questions. People leave their biglaw jobs to go to companies, equally-sized firms, smaller firms, or government jobs. This does not have to involve 70% pay cuts, and it certainly doesn't involve a sudden inability to continue paying off loans 3 years out of school. Is it a brutal job market? Yup. Does everyone end up unemployed? Not at all.

I'm hoping to ride the LRAP train and never spend time in biglaw, so this is largely irrelevant to me, but for a website full of really smart people, this mass anxiety about what comes after your 3 years in biglaw is absurd.

brah, as a 1L at NYU on a big scholarship i am telling you that you are only hearing what you want to hear. you are using internet anecdotal evidence from a handful of "lucky" associates who may even not be who they say they are. your best argument is "does everyone end up unemployed? not at all". you are right not everyone ends up screwed, but you are most wrong if you don't think a significant portion do end up screwed. no offense, but this mass anxiety is more justified in that you should be nervous paying $250K for anything and it is more close to the reality than you would like to believe. taking out sticker in hopes of relying on LRAP is a terrible idea. PI jobs are way tougher to land than Biglaw positions.

Also, even if you DO get that PI position, better hope you don't lose it, because if you take out $300,000 worth of loans, the little you do pay is not gonna hit the principal. If you get off the IBR/LRAP track for some reason, you're back where you started.

BerkeleyBear wrote:I never said anyone would become unemployed for the rest of their career after year 3 of biglaw. Fiscally speaking, you'd likely need a biglaw job to pay off your debt as quickly as possible if you did pay sticker at NYU. And that would take over 3 years. It would be idiotic to assume otherwise. Most people who are intelligent want to do this as quickly as possible. For good reason. If someone wants to take 6+ years to pay off their debt then they are free to do so.

Justify your ED to NYU however you'd like my friend. I do hope you can ride that LRAP train of yours.

pastapplicant wrote:brah, as a 1L at NYU on a big scholarship i am telling you that you are only hearing what you want to hear. you are using internet anecdotal evidence from a handful of "lucky" associates who may even not be who they say they are. your best argument is "does everyone end up unemployed? not at all". you are right not everyone ends up screwed, but you are most wrong if you don't think a significant portion do end up screwed. no offense, but this mass anxiety is more justified in that you should be nervous paying $250K for anything and it is more close to the reality than you would like to believe. taking out sticker in hopes of relying on LRAP is a terrible idea. PI jobs are way tougher to land than Biglaw positions.

My point is mostly that if you're concerned whether you will have a job at all after your 3 years in biglaw, then the obvious answer for everyone is to not go to law school, and how much you're paying is actually irrelevant. No matter whether you come out with $250,000 in loans or $100,000 in loans because of your scholarship, if you're out of a job in 3 years and you get screwed (I assume that means unable to find a decent legal job after biglaw), then regardless of whether you paid too much for your degree, your degree was useless and a waste of time all the same.

I'm not trying to weigh into the discussion of whether NYU is worth sticker (and, FWIW, I was deferred ED so I'm not locked in and it's doubtful that I'll attend given that I have scholarships elsewhere), merely that I don't see how it's a valid argument over how much to pay if what you're really saying is most people get screwed 3 years out of law school anyway. If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway? That's what the discussion should be about.

rad lulz wrote:Also, even if you DO get that PI position, better hope you don't lose it, because if you take out $300,000 worth of loans, the little you do pay is not gonna hit the principal. If you get off the IBR/LRAP track for some reason, you're back where you started.

Agreed, it's highly risky. The new LRAP+IBR plans these schools have are shit, and they turned good repayment options into seriously burdensome and risky commitments for students.

02889 wrote:If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway?

This is rank idiocy. It's pretty clear that you don't know the value of a dollar or what $150k in loans actually means there brah

BerkeleyBear wrote:Most likely getting a good job that pays well isn't really the problem. It's more problematic that at sticker you'd have to get a job that would enable you to pay off nearly 300K of debt and keep it for a while. The average lifespan for someone's career in biglaw is what? 3 years? The odds aren't in OP's favor.

Again, I don't understand why TLS assumes that you work in biglaw for 3-4 years (if you're lucky) and then you become unemployed for the rest of your career, or at best you move to a small firm and make $5/hour, making it impossible to continue making loan payments.

Look at the TLS threads of current associates taking questions. People leave their biglaw jobs to go to companies, equally-sized firms, smaller firms, or government jobs. This does not have to involve 70% pay cuts, and it certainly doesn't involve a sudden inability to continue paying off loans 3 years out of school. Is it a brutal job market? Yup. Does everyone end up unemployed? Not at all.

I'm hoping to ride the LRAP train and never spend time in biglaw, so this is largely irrelevant to me, but for a website full of really smart people, this mass anxiety about what comes after your 3 years in biglaw is absurd.

I wonder the same thing. Everything I've heard about big law attrition rates is that anyone who leaves in the first three years is leaving voluntarily. Leaving voluntarily + no job prospects = questionable decision making. I'm guessing most people secure their next employment before leaving big law. It's only after you've been in big law too long and they know you're not going to be partner that you really start to see high numbers of associates squeezed out. Will going big law out of Law School GUARANTEE you'll be able to pay back your student loans? Not in the slightest. But does it indicate that you'll probably be able to get it paid off? I dunno.. probably.

02889 wrote:If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway?

This is rank idiocy. It's pretty clear that you don't know the value of a dollar or what $150k in loans actually means there brah

It's not idiocy and dear lord stop with the 'brah' nonsense.

As I said, my point is if you believe that you will be screwed 3 years out of law school, do not get caught up on whether to attend for $100,000 or $250,000 -- just don't go because you're screwed and you're wasting large sums of money either way. I do not think NYU is worth $250,000-300,000 and I have never said so. I'm pointing out that at the end of the day, if you're going to get screwed 3 years out as posters have said, your debt burden should take a backseat to whether anyone should go at all.

02889 wrote: My point is mostly that if you're concerned whether you will have a job at all after your 3 years in biglaw, then the obvious answer for everyone is to not go to law school, and how much you're paying is actually irrelevant. No matter whether you come out with $250,000 in loans or $100,000 in loans because of your scholarship, if you're out of a job in 3 years and you get screwed (I assume that means unable to find a decent legal job after biglaw), then regardless of whether you paid too much for your degree, your degree was useless and a waste of time all the same.

I'm not trying to weigh into the discussion of whether NYU is worth sticker (and, FWIW, I was deferred ED so I'm not locked in and it's doubtful that I'll attend given that I have scholarships elsewhere), merely that I don't see how it's a valid argument over how much to pay if what you're really saying is most people get screwed 3 years out of law school anyway. If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway? That's what the discussion should be about.

The concern isn't about whether you'll be jobless after year 3 in biglaw. Although that could potentially be a problem one should give a bit of thought about I guess. I'm pretty sure someone who has years of experience from biglaw having graduated from NYU can find a legal job somewhere. It absolutely does matter how much someone paid for that degree though. It does matter if you have either paid off most your loans or still have nearly 200K left to pay off. That's actually a fucking huge deal. Jobless or not after year 3, I'm pretty sure someone would rather be basically free of debt rather than drowning in it.

And the title of this thread is " Is NYU at sticker worth it". That's what this discussion is about.

People largely use the biglaw or nothing model to judge if the law school investment is worth it because that is basically the only info we have on the subject.

There was a 20 years out survey done at UVA that had a ridiculous respond rate showing median income was like 260k for their graduates but times have a changed and we are the guinea pigs for this new environment.

BerkeleyBear wrote:"Everything I've heard about big law attrition rates is that anyone who leaves in the first three years is leaving voluntarily."My sides. They hurt. John, you don't possibly believe this, do you?

02889 wrote:If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway?

This is rank idiocy. It's pretty clear that you don't know the value of a dollar or what $150k in loans actually means there brah

It's not idiocy and dear lord stop with the 'brah' nonsense.

As I said, my point is if you believe that you will be screwed 3 years out of law school, do not get caught up on whether to attend for $100,000 or $250,000 -- just don't go because you're screwed and you're wasting large sums of money either way. I do not think NYU is worth $250,000-300,000 and I have never said so. I'm pointing out that at the end of the day, if you're going to get screwed 3 years out as posters have said, your debt burden should take a backseat to whether anyone should go at all.

wow even for an 0L you are laughably lacking in practicality and thinking skills when it comes to basic financial decisions. The "screwing" stems exactly from the debt load because that is the thing that is forcing you to maintain a six figure salary and pay off thousands of dollars every month. The "screwing" is not from not being able to find another six figure job after you get stealthed from biglaw. It is from the fact that you will be forced to either find a six figure salary or live in a dire financial situation especially since you can't discharge your loans.

someone who takes out $250K compared to someone who takes out $100K is in an entirely different situation. the monthly payments you have to pay dictate the flexibility you have after you get fired from biglaw. for dude who took out $100K will be fine even if he takes a lower paying job or even decides to pursue a nonlegal career. the $250K dude will be screwed if he doesn't hit the jackpot and land an in house gig or something that pays a lot.

02889 wrote:If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway?

This is rank idiocy. It's pretty clear that you don't know the value of a dollar or what $150k in loans actually means there brah

It's not idiocy and dear lord stop with the 'brah' nonsense.

As I said, my point is if you believe that you will be screwed 3 years out of law school, do not get caught up on whether to attend for $100,000 or $250,000 -- just don't go because you're screwed and you're wasting large sums of money either way. I do not think NYU is worth $250,000-300,000 and I have never said so. I'm pointing out that at the end of the day, if you're going to get screwed 3 years out as posters have said, your debt burden should take a backseat to whether anyone should go at all.

wow even for an 0L you are laughably lacking in practicality and thinking skills when it comes to basic financial decisions. The "screwing" stems exactly from the debt load because that is the thing that is forcing you to maintain a six figure salary and pay off thousands of dollars every month. The "screwing" is not from not being able to find another six figure job after you get stealthed from biglaw. It is from the fact that you will be forced to either find a six figure salary or live in a dire financial situation especially since you can't discharge your loans.

someone who takes out $250K compared to someone who takes out $100K is in an entirely different situation. the monthly payments you have to pay dictate the flexibility you have after you get fired from biglaw. for dude who took out $100K will be fine even if he takes a lower paying job or even decides to pursue a nonlegal career. the $250K dude will be screwed if he doesn't hit the jackpot and land an in house gig or something that pays a lot.

Laugh all you want, and continue to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that $100,000 = $250,000, or that the stress and lifestyle of those two situations are equal. You yourself said that "a significant portion do end up screwed" when referring to employment, not debt. Reread your post if you think you said otherwise. My counter to this is if you think you'll be screwed employment-wise after year 3, why do you think law school is even worth the $100,000? If you're laid off at year 3, obviously you'll be generally worse off with $150,000 left in debt than if you have $50,000 left in debt, both in terms of opportunities and stress. I can't believe you think I'm arguing this point. But you said that "a significant portion do end up screwed" with employment, which to me means that law school isn't worth sticker, and also isn't worth $100,000, because either way you're paying six figures for an education that only gives you 3 years of a "good" job before you end up "screwed."

02889 wrote:If you end up at that 3 year point and you've paid off most of your loans or you still have $150,000 left to pay off, either way you're out of a job and you've wasted time and money. Sure, maybe you're more relaxed without a high loan balance, but what was it all for anyway?

This is rank idiocy. It's pretty clear that you don't know the value of a dollar or what $150k in loans actually means there brah

It's not idiocy and dear lord stop with the 'brah' nonsense.

As I said, my point is if you believe that you will be screwed 3 years out of law school, do not get caught up on whether to attend for $100,000 or $250,000 -- just don't go because you're screwed and you're wasting large sums of money either way. I do not think NYU is worth $250,000-300,000 and I have never said so. I'm pointing out that at the end of the day, if you're going to get screwed 3 years out as posters have said, your debt burden should take a backseat to whether anyone should go at all.

wow even for an 0L you are laughably lacking in practicality and thinking skills when it comes to basic financial decisions. The "screwing" stems exactly from the debt load because that is the thing that is forcing you to maintain a six figure salary and pay off thousands of dollars every month. The "screwing" is not from not being able to find another six figure job after you get stealthed from biglaw. It is from the fact that you will be forced to either find a six figure salary or live in a dire financial situation especially since you can't discharge your loans.

someone who takes out $250K compared to someone who takes out $100K is in an entirely different situation. the monthly payments you have to pay dictate the flexibility you have after you get fired from biglaw. for dude who took out $100K will be fine even if he takes a lower paying job or even decides to pursue a nonlegal career. the $250K dude will be screwed if he doesn't hit the jackpot and land an in house gig or something that pays a lot.

If 100k is doable then you should probably realize that 3 year's of biglaw will almost certainly reduce the principle debt amount to around 100k when/if you will need to lateral out.

BerkeleyBear wrote:"Everything I've heard about big law attrition rates is that anyone who leaves in the first three years is leaving voluntarily."My sides. They hurt. John, you don't possibly believe this, do you?

I'm an ignorant 0L so I fully admit I might be 100 % wrong. This is mostly based off what a family friend who is a Junior Partner at a pretty big (not Vault 100 or anything but pays market) firm has told me.

I guess a big thing to consider is with the COL in NY and other major markets, how much of that $160 K first year salary can you use towards paying down your debt? If you live like you're still a law student and don't do anything stupid like buy a house or luxury car what would your balance look like after 3 years of BigLaw?

john7234797 wrote:I guess a big thing to consider is with the COL in NY and other major markets, how much of that $160 K first year salary can you use towards paying down your debt? If you live like you're still a law student and don't do anything stupid like buy a house or luxury car what would your balance look like after 3 years of BigLaw?

JamesDean1955 wrote:02889 and Pastapplicant, you guys are talking about two different things, and you're both right, although someone with $100k in loans in a low-paying or non-legal job is not my definition of "fine."

And yeah, the brah shit is fucking old dude. Maybe time to get a new profile - oh wait, you haven't trolled you way to 15,000 useless posts yet and created a going away thread in your honor. My bad, "brah", continue on.

Also, Hume, go fuck yourself. Nice to see the next generation of shitty braindead TLS posters has arrived.

JamesDean1955 wrote:02889 and Pastapplicant, you guys are talking about two different things, and you're both right, although someone with $100k in loans in a low-paying or non-legal job is not my definition of "fine."

And yeah, the brah shit is fucking old dude. Maybe time to get a new profile - oh wait, you haven't trolled you way to 15,000 useless posts yet and created a going away thread in your honor. My bad, "brah", continue on.

Also, Hume, go fuck yourself. Nice to see the next generation of shitty braindead TLS posters has arrived.

lol some of the people in this thread (mostly 0Ls) are the reason why I believe law schools will always be in business no matter how much they scam away. Funny thing is I've been on this board for almost four years now and it seems instead of getting any wiser due to the explosion of information regarding the scam, 0Ls seem to get dumber and more gullible. it is a bad sign when autoadmit is a better source of information than this site.